If you don’t accept my apostasy as legit, do you accept the beliefs of most of your fellow Catholics as such?
I don’t accept them as individually providing very much evidence at all; in the vast majority of cases other factors screen off any evidence.
...the default explanation for conversion, i.e. largely-unconscious far-sighted social pragmatics...
Could you provide some more specifics? Like I want to sin or don’t like my friends or what?
Well it’s a default explanation so I don’t have anything for you specifically in mind. But that you’re a member of LessWrong means there’s a fair bit of pressure on you to believe whatever LessWrong thinks it’s good to believe, and if your brain has decided that you’re not getting much benefit or a feeling of recognition and status from the Catholic social sphere then it’s liable to find ways to play up the importance of meshing with alternative social spheres like LessWrong. I don’t deny that you’ve searched for truth in good faith, but you can search in good faith for ages and still be unsure what to do; the actual deciding factors tend to be unconscious or sentimental drives.
I think you’d have to be at a Michael Vassar or Nick Tarleton level...
And are they Catholic or non-religious? If non-religious… do you accept their apostasy?
I think they are both religious in the relevant sense, but not specifically Catholic. I accept their non-Catholicism as evidence against something but not really against the truth of Catholicism as such; it’s more evidence against the benefit of tying yourself to Catholicism specifically rather than trying to forge a new religion. I think they have more agency than I do right now and so I don’t think their non-Catholicism is much evidence that I’d be wrong to convert to Catholicism or that they think that I’d be wrong to convert to Catholicism. Ultimately I would like to make a new religion, which is I think what they’d like to do, but in the meantime I think Catholicism is the best religion around. I think this idea of a religion being true or false is clearly misguided; it’s more a question of how you interpret the world and what institutions allow for more and more-justified optimization of the world, which is heavily contingent on pragmatics of human psychology.
While I’m not smart enough to do it (yet), I would love to see a Bayesian analysis (since you mentioned it) on the probability that a god who values the salvation of souls in the highest degree would require the subject comprehension and intellectual dedication you demand to order to believe (or not). Or require the words of a book spread on foot as the only means toward knowing which specific god is real. Or even that given one true god, the other fake ones would also use the means of an inspired text to spread knowledge of themselves.
This is why I emphasized social psychology and game theory, because doing thorough analyses of questions like these is simply too difficult. We have to find a way to take people’s impressions and cultural traditions and use them correctly as evidence, because so much thought has implicitly gone into answering questions like these that there’s no easy way to directly access. And maybe the way we’re posing the questions involves presuppositions that aren’t in fact accurate, e.g. maybe we think that others believe something that they only say they believe when really they believe this other thing that is more reasonable but if we deny the former then that means unjustifiably denying the latter. This sort of thing happens constantly, and without very good models of social psychology, game theory, cognitive science, and hermeneutics generally we simply can’t even come close to getting the right answers.
Oh, and I meant to ask: feel free to provide links/references to what you find most convincing concerning theism.
I don’t think there are references that explain the sorts of things that got me interested in theism in the first place, specifically various intuitions about moral philosophy and decision theory. After I had those I could look into Kant or Aquinas and be impressed, but I don’t know if I would have realized the depth of their arguments if I hadn’t thought about the moral philosophy and decision theory on my own first.
I don’t accept them as individually providing very much evidence at all...
Hard to tell what you meant. I didn’t mean to ask whether you accept their belief as providing evidence for theism… only whether or not you think their belief is justified given the level of knowledge you expect from me not to believe.
Well it’s a default explanation so I don’t have anything for you specifically in mind.
But I still don’t understand the meaning of that default explanation… and so I just meant “what types of things count as fitting the definition of ‘largely-unconscious far-sighted social pragmatics’?” (I think you answered it in your next bit, though.)
But that you’re a member of LessWrong means there’s a fair bit of pressure on you to believe whatever LessWrong thinks it’s good to believe...
My deconversion was significantly in motion prior to finding LessWrong (first doubts in Dec 2009, first comment here in Jan 2011, which suggests I might have found LW from this post from Jul 2010?).
...the actual deciding factors tend to be unconscious or sentimental drives.
How would I identify whether this is or is not the case, especially if they are unconscious?
I think this idea of a religion being true or false is clearly misguided; it’s more a question of how you interpret the world and what institutions allow for more and more-justified optimization of the world, which is heavily contingent on pragmatics of human psychology.
I like how you put that, and thanks for the explanation re. Vassar and Tarleton. I definitely approached my “quest” with the primary focus of trying to determine whether or not there was a deity who cared what I did and whether or not the Catholic faith had something special with respect to such a deity’s wishes/plans/texts/etc.
You continue to return to social/pragmatic aspects, which continues to leave me puzzled as to whether you think the Catholic Church’s primary advantage is that it’s most aligned with the wishes/truths concerning a god of some sort, or whether it’s beliefs are just a side effect and what really matters is that it has the best social/pragmatic rules/suggestions for human beings of any competing religion.
This is why I emphasized social psychology and game theory, because doing thorough analyses of questions like these is simply too difficult.
Gotcha, and I’m glad they didn’t seem difficult only to me :)
After reading all that, though, it still leaves me puzzled that a being who wants us to know about it would reveal itself (bible) in a time when we had none of these probability and game theories, and no formal study of social psychology.
After I had those I could look into Kant or Aquinas and be impressed, but I don’t know if I would have realized the depth of their arguments if I hadn’t thought about the moral philosophy and decision theory on my own first.
After reading this post, I think it would be fantastic if you simply laid out some x-part series here on LW specifying more about your current beliefs. At the moment, they seem paradoxically very strong yet vague. As in, you strike me as being rather confident in theism (or various theistic tenets) while typically offering very vague statements about specifically what they are (more on this in a different response, as it fits better there).
My read of this post/threads suggest that what happened is that you came out and asked “Why is theism wrong?” Then a bunch (like ~500) comments took place explaining various objections, and you concluded that everyone was attacking someone else’s theism, which isn’t what you hold or think is really theism.
Perhaps a new post with specifics might help more (or point me to more of that if it already exists).
I didn’t mean to ask whether you accept their belief as providing evidence for theism… only whether or not you think their belief is justified given the level of knowledge you expect from me not to believe.
Oh, no, not really; I think on the whole their reasons for believing what they do aren’t very good, and that if their belief is justified it’s mostly the result of epistemic luck rather than their personal epistemic abilities as such.
But I still don’t understand the meaning of that default explanation… and so I just meant “what types of things count as fitting the definition of ‘largely-unconscious far-sighted social pragmatics’?”
Sorry, misinterpreted you. I think the question of “why do people generally (profess that they) believe what they (profess that they) believe” is a very interesting question and worth serious study, but that any simple answer I attempt to give will be laughably oversimplified.
My deconversion was significantly in motion prior to finding LessWrong
Okay, then my points re LessWrong don’t apply at all. It’s probable that my default model doesn’t apply and that your reasons for deconversion are largely due to your philosophical and general epistemic intuitions.
...the actual deciding factors tend to be unconscious or sentimental drives.
How would I identify whether this is or is not the case, especially if they are unconscious?
You continue to return to social/pragmatic aspects, which continues to leave me puzzled as to whether you think the Catholic Church’s primary advantage is that it’s most aligned with the wishes/truths concerning a god of some sort, or whether it’s beliefs are just a side effect and what really matters is that it has the best social/pragmatic rules/suggestions for human beings of any competing religion.
I think that if you’re trying to optimize for truthful and useful doctrine about morality and theology then Catholicism is the best bet unless you’re astoundingly good at discovering the truth on your own. But I’m not highly confident in this judgment; you should learn from whoever is wise, and if for some reason the wisest person who’s easily available is a Zen Buddhist, then you should likely become a Zen Buddhist. If there are no wise individual people around then I think Catholicism has the most reliably good infrastructure of doctrine, but again I may be wrong.
After reading all that, though, it still leaves me puzzled that a being who wants us to know about it would reveal itself (bible) in a time when we had none of these probability and game theories, and no formal study of social psychology.
If YHWH is around then He is indeed playing a subtle and puzzling game.
As in, you strike me as being rather confident in theism (or various theistic tenets) while typically offering very vague statements about specifically what they are
I’m not very confident of theism; I think it’s a problem of English that it’s very difficult to consistently make claims of >10% but <50% certainty. And what my intuitions say and what my betting odds are are two different things; I know better than to just trust my intuition. The reason my statements are so vague is because it would take a lot of writing to explain my intuitions about moral philosophy and decision theory to people on LessWrong whose perspective differs greatly from mine. Even people who have much of the relevant knowledge and who I would expect to easily see what I believe and why, like Vladimir_Nesov, seem to not really understand the underlying intuitions nor where they would lead if correct.
My read of this post/threads suggest that what happened is that you came out and asked “Why is theism wrong?” Then a bunch (like ~500) comments took place explaining various objections, and you concluded that everyone was attacking someone else’s theism, which isn’t what you hold or think is really theism.
I think that’s a mischaracterization; many of the most highly upvoted comments agreed that it is possible that theism isn’t wrong if by theism we mean simulationism (which is what I had contended), and the majority of the objections were along the lines of requesting that we not call simulationism by the name of theism, which is a reasonable request but not an objection to theism.
Perhaps a new post with specifics might help more (or point me to more of that if it already exists).
I think that local beliefs are stacked against mine to such an extent that an extreme burden of proof would be on me to provide strong justification and explanations for all of my claims, which just isn’t feasible for me personally in the near future.
Thanks for the dialog.
You too; I’m glad there exists a place like LessWrong where a prospective Catholic convert and a prospective Catholic deconvert can have civil and productive discourse about epistemology and theology.
I’m enjoying this more and more. At first (and it was probably apparent), I was pretty defensive, particularly because this is obviously something personal and important and I felt a bit threatened. I think I (at least, maybe “we”) have leveled off and are actually getting places now :)
if their belief is justified it’s mostly the result of epistemic luck...
Well put, and we agree on that. Though your big bang cosmology example made me realize that this is more true in far more areas of my life than I am aware of (or even care to think about in order to avoid an ugh field).
It’s probable that my default model doesn’t apply...
Maybe, maybe not. I was around my father and brother during Christmas break and they don’t believe. I was with my wife, though, and we both did very strongly. I said rosary on the plane on the way down, tried to take some personal prayer time, etc. So… I’m not explicitly aware of those things, but then again I was in close proximity to non-believers (which perhaps forced me to wonder why they didn’t believe, leading me to my first major cognitive dissonance) and away from my typical very-tight-knit Catholic social sphere for ~10 days.
Then again, I’ve debated my dad about biblical interpretation and tended to view them in a pained manner, as in a “Why can’t they just see the truth?” type of way. It was an unusual circumstance, but I’ve typically held my own without feeling any doubts or uncertainty before. I could see it either way.
I’ll check out the link on rationalization. Thanks.
I think Catholicism has the most reliably good infrastructure of doctrine, but again I may be wrong.
We don’t have to pursue this more, but I’d be interested in how you think Catholics are so good. Is it, as you said before, by epistemic luck, or because they actually have some sort of connection to a divine being’s will/intention? Similarly, just to probe some specifics:
Do you sign onto this being having a purpose/design for humans? As in, was the universe created for us to exist as the pinnacle of creation, to live out holy lives, and then spend eternity in a heaven if we’ve lived good enough?
Similarly, with something like contraception (contraversial, I know), the typical route Catholics would take to their stance is that it’s “unnatural.” God intended sperm to meet the egg and so preventing that in some non-natural way is thus contrary to his will. How do you sit with that specific line of moral thought and subsequent implication derivation (not just on contraception, any don’t-fiddle-with-how-god-designed-things line of argument)?
I’m not very confident of theism...
Oh. When I replied at that other thread (though, that was WIN_2011), it was to you saying you were highly confident in an omni-max being, which I took to mean theism.
I think that’s a mischaracterization...
Re-read, and I can see that. I think I’m also still having a hard time wrapping my mind around your use of the word “theism” (or at least what you meant a year ago in that post). “Agent-y processes” is not what typically comes to mind when I’m talking about theism :)
To be fair, though, you do seem to be talking about YHWH, or at least perhaps you’re saying that people writing in the bible have been interpreting this simulation machine as the analog of a person, but with magic powers and an interest in their eternal future?
You too; I’m glad there exists a place like LessWrong where...
Indeed! Like I said, I feel much more on the same page with you after some back and forth. It’s at least been mind opening to some other views and you’ll surely have my head involuntarily occupied (well, your ideas) on my car rides to and from work for several days or more.
We don’t have to pursue this more, but I’d be interested in how you think Catholics are so good. Is it, as you said before, by epistemic luck, or because they actually have some sort of connection to a divine being’s will/intention?
My own personal belief (not that you were asking me) is that any religion around long enough during periods of intellectual progress will get some sort of internally consistent formulation, however much violence it may do to a naive reading of the original texts. Catholicism is a good example, with the reconstruction of theology by the Scholastics on top of the original revisionism of Paul and later Greek-influenced scholars like Augustine. But you could as easily point to Buddhism, which in areas has some pretty excellent philosophizing to back up its beliefs. (Reading Nagarjuna’s Verses on the Heart of the Middle Way, I had the eerie feeling I was reading Sextus Empiricus’s sharp logical paradoxes, just with different vocabulary.) Confucianism didn’t do too shabbily after 2+ millennia of development, and even something as crude as Shintoism got some pretty heavy intellectual development during the Meiji era and run up to WWII, becoming part of the quasi-fascist nationalist ideology of those periods which apparently convinced the Japanese public and many intellectuals. (Nor did Japanese Buddhism escape this process of rationalizing—read Zen at War.)
I’m quite glad you commented, and interesting take. What about younger religions that still seem to manager to woo people and hold them intellectually captive like Mormonism (~150 yrs) and Scientology (~50 yrs).
Most of humanity is not part of them, but Mormonism in particular is very quickly growing. Do you think it’s success had to do with the aspect of being internally consistent, or some other attractive feature?
I don’t know about Mormonism. Reading calcsam’s articles, I get the impression that the superficial archaeological gloss provides some intellectual respectability. But more generally, I get the impression that right now the Mormon community is still young and functional—like the early Christians, who really did provide a lot of charity, form loving accepting communities, pool their resources, etc. (And lost it as they grew. Any successful startup can sympathize.) If this is so, then we can expect to see their growth level off at some point. Early Christianity began losing it by the 300s or so, which gives Mormonism plenty of time left (but on the other hand, they grew much faster).
How memetically fit their beliefs are now, consistency-wise or appeal-wise, I don’t know.
With Scientology, they have an interesting esoteric hierarchy of knowledge, which has long been a drawn to humans (think Eliezer’s Conspiracy universe, or the Christian Gnostics, for that matter), and a number of half-baked Western & New Age derived techniques that apparently do work—a religious Toastmasters or pickup artist movement, you might say. (I think Luke posted an article on this. Could probably find it googling the ‘Scientology stare’.) They haven’t been that successful that their success stands in need of explaining; if they are still around in a century and have more than 10 million members, say, then they will be much more interesting a phenomena.
I don’t accept them as individually providing very much evidence at all; in the vast majority of cases other factors screen off any evidence.
Well it’s a default explanation so I don’t have anything for you specifically in mind. But that you’re a member of LessWrong means there’s a fair bit of pressure on you to believe whatever LessWrong thinks it’s good to believe, and if your brain has decided that you’re not getting much benefit or a feeling of recognition and status from the Catholic social sphere then it’s liable to find ways to play up the importance of meshing with alternative social spheres like LessWrong. I don’t deny that you’ve searched for truth in good faith, but you can search in good faith for ages and still be unsure what to do; the actual deciding factors tend to be unconscious or sentimental drives.
I think they are both religious in the relevant sense, but not specifically Catholic. I accept their non-Catholicism as evidence against something but not really against the truth of Catholicism as such; it’s more evidence against the benefit of tying yourself to Catholicism specifically rather than trying to forge a new religion. I think they have more agency than I do right now and so I don’t think their non-Catholicism is much evidence that I’d be wrong to convert to Catholicism or that they think that I’d be wrong to convert to Catholicism. Ultimately I would like to make a new religion, which is I think what they’d like to do, but in the meantime I think Catholicism is the best religion around. I think this idea of a religion being true or false is clearly misguided; it’s more a question of how you interpret the world and what institutions allow for more and more-justified optimization of the world, which is heavily contingent on pragmatics of human psychology.
This is why I emphasized social psychology and game theory, because doing thorough analyses of questions like these is simply too difficult. We have to find a way to take people’s impressions and cultural traditions and use them correctly as evidence, because so much thought has implicitly gone into answering questions like these that there’s no easy way to directly access. And maybe the way we’re posing the questions involves presuppositions that aren’t in fact accurate, e.g. maybe we think that others believe something that they only say they believe when really they believe this other thing that is more reasonable but if we deny the former then that means unjustifiably denying the latter. This sort of thing happens constantly, and without very good models of social psychology, game theory, cognitive science, and hermeneutics generally we simply can’t even come close to getting the right answers.
I don’t think there are references that explain the sorts of things that got me interested in theism in the first place, specifically various intuitions about moral philosophy and decision theory. After I had those I could look into Kant or Aquinas and be impressed, but I don’t know if I would have realized the depth of their arguments if I hadn’t thought about the moral philosophy and decision theory on my own first.
Hard to tell what you meant. I didn’t mean to ask whether you accept their belief as providing evidence for theism… only whether or not you think their belief is justified given the level of knowledge you expect from me not to believe.
But I still don’t understand the meaning of that default explanation… and so I just meant “what types of things count as fitting the definition of ‘largely-unconscious far-sighted social pragmatics’?” (I think you answered it in your next bit, though.)
My deconversion was significantly in motion prior to finding LessWrong (first doubts in Dec 2009, first comment here in Jan 2011, which suggests I might have found LW from this post from Jul 2010?).
How would I identify whether this is or is not the case, especially if they are unconscious?
I like how you put that, and thanks for the explanation re. Vassar and Tarleton. I definitely approached my “quest” with the primary focus of trying to determine whether or not there was a deity who cared what I did and whether or not the Catholic faith had something special with respect to such a deity’s wishes/plans/texts/etc.
You continue to return to social/pragmatic aspects, which continues to leave me puzzled as to whether you think the Catholic Church’s primary advantage is that it’s most aligned with the wishes/truths concerning a god of some sort, or whether it’s beliefs are just a side effect and what really matters is that it has the best social/pragmatic rules/suggestions for human beings of any competing religion.
Gotcha, and I’m glad they didn’t seem difficult only to me :)
After reading all that, though, it still leaves me puzzled that a being who wants us to know about it would reveal itself (bible) in a time when we had none of these probability and game theories, and no formal study of social psychology.
After reading this post, I think it would be fantastic if you simply laid out some x-part series here on LW specifying more about your current beliefs. At the moment, they seem paradoxically very strong yet vague. As in, you strike me as being rather confident in theism (or various theistic tenets) while typically offering very vague statements about specifically what they are (more on this in a different response, as it fits better there).
My read of this post/threads suggest that what happened is that you came out and asked “Why is theism wrong?” Then a bunch (like ~500) comments took place explaining various objections, and you concluded that everyone was attacking someone else’s theism, which isn’t what you hold or think is really theism.
Perhaps a new post with specifics might help more (or point me to more of that if it already exists).
Thanks for the dialog.
Oh, no, not really; I think on the whole their reasons for believing what they do aren’t very good, and that if their belief is justified it’s mostly the result of epistemic luck rather than their personal epistemic abilities as such.
Sorry, misinterpreted you. I think the question of “why do people generally (profess that they) believe what they (profess that they) believe” is a very interesting question and worth serious study, but that any simple answer I attempt to give will be laughably oversimplified.
Okay, then my points re LessWrong don’t apply at all. It’s probable that my default model doesn’t apply and that your reasons for deconversion are largely due to your philosophical and general epistemic intuitions.
By noticing conscious rationalization, mostly. That would at least clue you in that something funny is going on, if it is.
I think that if you’re trying to optimize for truthful and useful doctrine about morality and theology then Catholicism is the best bet unless you’re astoundingly good at discovering the truth on your own. But I’m not highly confident in this judgment; you should learn from whoever is wise, and if for some reason the wisest person who’s easily available is a Zen Buddhist, then you should likely become a Zen Buddhist. If there are no wise individual people around then I think Catholicism has the most reliably good infrastructure of doctrine, but again I may be wrong.
If YHWH is around then He is indeed playing a subtle and puzzling game.
I’m not very confident of theism; I think it’s a problem of English that it’s very difficult to consistently make claims of >10% but <50% certainty. And what my intuitions say and what my betting odds are are two different things; I know better than to just trust my intuition. The reason my statements are so vague is because it would take a lot of writing to explain my intuitions about moral philosophy and decision theory to people on LessWrong whose perspective differs greatly from mine. Even people who have much of the relevant knowledge and who I would expect to easily see what I believe and why, like Vladimir_Nesov, seem to not really understand the underlying intuitions nor where they would lead if correct.
I think that’s a mischaracterization; many of the most highly upvoted comments agreed that it is possible that theism isn’t wrong if by theism we mean simulationism (which is what I had contended), and the majority of the objections were along the lines of requesting that we not call simulationism by the name of theism, which is a reasonable request but not an objection to theism.
I think that local beliefs are stacked against mine to such an extent that an extreme burden of proof would be on me to provide strong justification and explanations for all of my claims, which just isn’t feasible for me personally in the near future.
You too; I’m glad there exists a place like LessWrong where a prospective Catholic convert and a prospective Catholic deconvert can have civil and productive discourse about epistemology and theology.
I’m enjoying this more and more. At first (and it was probably apparent), I was pretty defensive, particularly because this is obviously something personal and important and I felt a bit threatened. I think I (at least, maybe “we”) have leveled off and are actually getting places now :)
Well put, and we agree on that. Though your big bang cosmology example made me realize that this is more true in far more areas of my life than I am aware of (or even care to think about in order to avoid an ugh field).
Maybe, maybe not. I was around my father and brother during Christmas break and they don’t believe. I was with my wife, though, and we both did very strongly. I said rosary on the plane on the way down, tried to take some personal prayer time, etc. So… I’m not explicitly aware of those things, but then again I was in close proximity to non-believers (which perhaps forced me to wonder why they didn’t believe, leading me to my first major cognitive dissonance) and away from my typical very-tight-knit Catholic social sphere for ~10 days.
Then again, I’ve debated my dad about biblical interpretation and tended to view them in a pained manner, as in a “Why can’t they just see the truth?” type of way. It was an unusual circumstance, but I’ve typically held my own without feeling any doubts or uncertainty before. I could see it either way.
I’ll check out the link on rationalization. Thanks.
We don’t have to pursue this more, but I’d be interested in how you think Catholics are so good. Is it, as you said before, by epistemic luck, or because they actually have some sort of connection to a divine being’s will/intention? Similarly, just to probe some specifics:
Do you sign onto this being having a purpose/design for humans? As in, was the universe created for us to exist as the pinnacle of creation, to live out holy lives, and then spend eternity in a heaven if we’ve lived good enough?
Similarly, with something like contraception (contraversial, I know), the typical route Catholics would take to their stance is that it’s “unnatural.” God intended sperm to meet the egg and so preventing that in some non-natural way is thus contrary to his will. How do you sit with that specific line of moral thought and subsequent implication derivation (not just on contraception, any don’t-fiddle-with-how-god-designed-things line of argument)?
Oh. When I replied at that other thread (though, that was WIN_2011), it was to you saying you were highly confident in an omni-max being, which I took to mean theism.
Re-read, and I can see that. I think I’m also still having a hard time wrapping my mind around your use of the word “theism” (or at least what you meant a year ago in that post). “Agent-y processes” is not what typically comes to mind when I’m talking about theism :)
To be fair, though, you do seem to be talking about YHWH, or at least perhaps you’re saying that people writing in the bible have been interpreting this simulation machine as the analog of a person, but with magic powers and an interest in their eternal future?
Indeed! Like I said, I feel much more on the same page with you after some back and forth. It’s at least been mind opening to some other views and you’ll surely have my head involuntarily occupied (well, your ideas) on my car rides to and from work for several days or more.
My own personal belief (not that you were asking me) is that any religion around long enough during periods of intellectual progress will get some sort of internally consistent formulation, however much violence it may do to a naive reading of the original texts. Catholicism is a good example, with the reconstruction of theology by the Scholastics on top of the original revisionism of Paul and later Greek-influenced scholars like Augustine. But you could as easily point to Buddhism, which in areas has some pretty excellent philosophizing to back up its beliefs. (Reading Nagarjuna’s Verses on the Heart of the Middle Way, I had the eerie feeling I was reading Sextus Empiricus’s sharp logical paradoxes, just with different vocabulary.) Confucianism didn’t do too shabbily after 2+ millennia of development, and even something as crude as Shintoism got some pretty heavy intellectual development during the Meiji era and run up to WWII, becoming part of the quasi-fascist nationalist ideology of those periods which apparently convinced the Japanese public and many intellectuals. (Nor did Japanese Buddhism escape this process of rationalizing—read Zen at War.)
I’m quite glad you commented, and interesting take. What about younger religions that still seem to manager to woo people and hold them intellectually captive like Mormonism (~150 yrs) and Scientology (~50 yrs).
Most of humanity is not part of them, but Mormonism in particular is very quickly growing. Do you think it’s success had to do with the aspect of being internally consistent, or some other attractive feature?
I don’t know about Mormonism. Reading calcsam’s articles, I get the impression that the superficial archaeological gloss provides some intellectual respectability. But more generally, I get the impression that right now the Mormon community is still young and functional—like the early Christians, who really did provide a lot of charity, form loving accepting communities, pool their resources, etc. (And lost it as they grew. Any successful startup can sympathize.) If this is so, then we can expect to see their growth level off at some point. Early Christianity began losing it by the 300s or so, which gives Mormonism plenty of time left (but on the other hand, they grew much faster).
How memetically fit their beliefs are now, consistency-wise or appeal-wise, I don’t know.
With Scientology, they have an interesting esoteric hierarchy of knowledge, which has long been a drawn to humans (think Eliezer’s Conspiracy universe, or the Christian Gnostics, for that matter), and a number of half-baked Western & New Age derived techniques that apparently do work—a religious Toastmasters or pickup artist movement, you might say. (I think Luke posted an article on this. Could probably find it googling the ‘Scientology stare’.) They haven’t been that successful that their success stands in need of explaining; if they are still around in a century and have more than 10 million members, say, then they will be much more interesting a phenomena.